Disagree. Glad to see @Rob equates threat to democracy w threat to our country. Or where 47 says we have to take back our country or we won’t have a country.
Trump 47
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
Polds4OSU
Marshall
So can't tell us who all shot, how many times, if the shooter shot or not, if any one was hit by a bullet and now they aren't answering any more questions about the ballistics from the shooting.
Acting AG Todd Blanche won't answer basic ballistics questions about WHCD shooting
Link via Huffington Post
Well I learned something new today...
Thank you for your insight. I agree with this contention. I just wanted to get "the wrong question" out there and see how it was responded to.
Agreed. Particularly with your focus on being "voluntarily curtailed". I believe that even if it is just hyperbole, it is protected speech that the government has no authority to suppress or censor.
I don't know that I am at that position/belief yet, but I don't believe that is an unreasonable position to take.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Last edited:
In my opinion, Acting AG Todd Blanche SHOULDN'T be answering basic ballistics questions about WHCD shooting at this time.
I'm a big fan of trying my cases in the courtroom rather than in the media. Trying them in the media like J. Edgar Boozer/Keystone Kash Patel and Pam Bondi have done in the past is a violation of ethical rules for public prosecutors.
Announcing what charges have been filed, referring the media to the criminal complaint, and leaving it at that is the way to go.
Could the incompetence of the administration possibly give this guy an out? He published a manifesto that about as close to an admission as it gets but if administration officials continue to say dumb things in public could his defense argue that they tainted the jury pool and by being federal officials tainted it everywhere?
The GOP likely has the strongest case that an opponent incited potential violence. Indeed, when informed that their demonization of a GOP congresswoman had triggered death threats against her child, the opponent replied that it would be the congresswoman’s own fault if her child were murdered.
Last edited:
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Problem is, he already started doing it, already acknowledged the complaint filed against the accused included a charge of discharging a firearm etc. and when the media questioned him that eye witness accts don't support the suspect shooting, and that some eyewitness say the officer that was struck was hit by another officer and the accused never fired a gun...now he announces he is not talking about it.
Talk or not, fine...but don't start doing it and then when you can't answer questions about what you have openly talked about in the past, decide to stop talking. It fuels conspiracy.
Ok, he clarified. His bill is just let him do it, not for tax payer dollars to go to it like Graham was proposing.
And the MAGA intern posting on his Twitter account yesterday has been banned from his office.
Potentially tainting the jury pool is one of the reasons prosecutors have special ethical rules.
The one about extrajudicial statements in Oklahoma states as follows:
except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule;
Most states have a similar rule. That's why Bondi was advocating that DOJ lawyers not be subject to licensure sanction/investigations of misconduct while they are employed by the government. That is an AWFUL idea.
Well then, the "problem" to me is that he violated ethical rules with his original extrajudicial statements disclosing alleged facts surrounding the investigation. Continuing to do so only compounds the problem IMO.
That to me is the classic blame the victims for fighting back statement. All of that is in response to Trumps actual actions.
Similar threads
